Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #662482

Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit.

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 0:50:06 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 20:43:38 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 16:12:10 +0000, rhertz wrote:
> > >
> > > And CoE is KNOWN to be valid by engineers.  I spent part of my
> career
> > > dealing with the problem of keeping laser diodes from overheating
> and
> > > I can tell you that Electrical power in = [light power + heat power]
> > > out.
> > >
> > > And is dEin/dt = dL/dt + dH/dt simple enough for you?  (Of course,
> > > if the temperature rose too high, radiation loss would also have to
> > > be included, but the laser diode would have ceased to operate long
> > > before that became important).  By your lights, CoE couldn't be
> > > confirmed unless we measured that and everything else to 10^(-100)%.
> > > And then, not even that!
> > >
> > > It's not necessary to go into the quantum mechanics, solid state
> > > physics, population inversion, or stimulated emission or optical
> > > reflection at facets or anything else.  If you disagree with that,
> > > then you are:
> > >
> > > > more stupid than what I thought once. An idiot without cure.
> > >
> > > Now THAT I can agree with :-))
> > >
> > >
> > > ******************************************************************
> > >
> > > I respect your experience with laser diodes. It's OK, but this is A
> > > LOCAL THING IN AN OPEN SYSTEM!
> > >
> > > I question the validity of the "Law of Conservation of Energy" ONLY
> IN
> > > ABSOLUTELY CLOSED, ISOLATED SYSTEMS, WITH EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS
> BEING
> > > INTO THE MODEL.
> > >
> > > CONTEMPLATE EVERYTHING IN YOUR LOCAL SYSTEM, UNTIL NOTHING IS LEFT
> OUT!
> > >
> > > Then tell me that LCE is a real thing. Some aspects that you missed:
> > >
> > > - From where does the energy powering the laser diode? Describe the
> > > chain of mechanisms that provide such power, until NOTHING IS LEFT
> OUT.
> > >
> > > - To where are going the energy of the laser beam and the generated
> > > heat going?
> > >   Include every single subsystem IN THE CLOSED SYSTEM that gather
> > > the generated energy, up to the last molecule, atom, electron.
> > >
> > > Once you included everything, even quantum events, in your model
> THEN
> > > YOU CAN TALK ABOUT A CLOSED SYSTEM, AND DO THE MATH TO PROVE THE LCE
> > > AS CORRECT-
> > >
> > > Too complex for you? OF COURSE, as it is for everyone else.
> >
> > By your lights, there is no such thing as you describe.  Your "closed
> > system" is a canard.  No reasonable engineer would characterize the
> > operation of laser diodes by including the losses in the electrical
> > power plant, line losses, and power supply.  Don't you claim to be an
> > engineer, but engineers deal with "close enough for all practical
> > purposes."  So you're NOT an engineer.  Just WHAT are you?
> >
> > Your assertion that "LCE" cannot be confirmed unless we do all your
> > "requirements" is false and irrelevant anyway.  It is sufficient
> > to measure all the inputs and outputs to a system.  That makes it
> > a closed system.  An isolated system is harder to accomplish,
> > particularly with your unscientific requirement that everything
> > must be measured to 10,000,000+ significant figure accuracy.
> >
> > > Then, TO SIMPLIFY, you start to let things OUT OF YOUR CLOSED
> SYSTEM.
> > > Then, with a little help of arithmetic you can claim: ENERGY IS
> > > CONSERVED, YEAH! (But with which error margin? 0.1%, 0.001%,
> 0.0000001%?
> >
> > Engineers understand that there is ALWAYS an error margin.  Putting
> > a strait jacket on things like that on a physicist is hypocritical.
> >
> > > Do you see? THINK CRITICALLY and then you'll question even the
> simplest
> > > law, like the Ohm Law.
> >
> > I've measured that, too, for all practical purposes.  Of course,
> > diodes, etc. have nonlinear resistance.  I've dealt with them, too,
> > and power still equals current times voltage.
> >
> > > Got it?  Physics IS A FARCE. Only applied engineering can save the
> faces
> > > of retarded physicists, highly self-entitled imbeciles.
> > >
> > > Why do you accept things without DEEP QUESTIONING THEM?
> >
> > Ah, but I DO.  I questioned SR, so I considered all of the assumptions
> > until I understood them.  All theories have domains of applicability.
> > Part of what true scientists do is understand those limits.
> >
> >  “The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its
> > limits”
> > -- Albert Einstein
>
> There is a HUGE PROBLEM with classic and modern mathematics (calculus,
> arithmetic, geometry, etc.).
>
> They CAN'T HANDLE NONLINEARITIES. There are no theoretical solutions for
> non-linear differential equation, nor even geometry (ellipse perimeter,
> etc.), non-linear integro-differential equations AND SO ON.
>
> So, the solutions are:
>
> 1) Express principles and laws of nature IN A LINEAR FORM.
> 2) If you got non-linear equations LINEARIZE THEM (Ebers-Moll transistor
> model and small signal transistors models).
> 3) If you got into a problem with non-linear equations, then USE
> COMPUTERIZED NUMERICAL MODELS, which break down non-linearities into
> almost infinite interconnected segments.
>
> This is applied to EVERY BRANCH OF PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, ENGINEERING,
> FINANCES, ETC.

I spent a college year solving partial differential equations by the
series method.  Many solutions were in the form of sine/cosine series.
You got an analytic solution in the form of an infinite series, but if
needed a practical solution, you had to truncate the series at some
point and accept an approximation.  Is this a "huge problem" with
mathematics, or a "huge problem" with the universe :-)

> Think of elliptic integrals, transcendental expressions for natural
> phenomena (like exponential decays, spiral 2D figures-Fibobacci curves,
> etc.). Now try to find analytical solutions for models that contain
> non-linear components, and tell me again that laws of conservation of
> momentum and energy are perfectly described by LINEAR EQUATIONS. You
> can't affirm that, and nobody couldn't nor can.

Matter itself is nonlinear.  That's the way nature is.  But as I pointed
out previously, that's irrelevant because Ein = Eout (in the
steady-state).

> Besides the need to work with closed system that contain EVERYTHING,
> science should work with CORRECT MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSIONS, which contain
> non-linearities. Then, say goodbye to simplistic "LAWS" that you're
> forced to accept since HS.

It's still Ein = Eout (in the steady state).  Of course, it takes
infinite
time to reach steady-state, so EVERY measurement is an approximation.
Real physicist as well as engineers understand this, why don't you?

> Criticizing the current framework of physics and its models is
> considered more heretic than questioning relativity.

Few physicists accepted SR in the beginning.  It's human nature to have
inertia.  I run into it all the time.

> SO, WE LIVE IN A WORLD OF APPROXIMATIONS, AND ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
> ABSOLUTE VALIDITY OF EACH "LAW" IS SEVERELY PUNISHED. YOU'RE LABELED AS
> LUNATIC, BEYOND CRANK NAME CALLING.

NOBODY with a thoughtful brain believes in "ABSOLUTE VALIDITY," except
maybe people that are autistic.  They say that good engineers suffer a
bit from autism, so do you have that problem?

> But, as isolated systems don't have a REAL existence because of the
> unknowns, any theory is just an approximation to the truth, which will
> never be reached.

Since our measuring equipment isn't "absolutely" accurate, a system can
never be characterized absolutely anyway.

> Think about the conservation of energy and momentum in the solar system.
> Now tell me how can you devise a closed system for it. How many
> variables are left out?

Who cares?  You seem to believe that if a law is not "absolute" it
should
be thrown out.  CoE, COM, ohms law, relativity, etc. are maps of nature
but they are not the territory.  We use them because they are good
enough
for most practical purposes.  Good enough so that if someone asserts
that
he has this little machine that puts out more energy than it consumes,
it
is proper to be skeptical.  Such claims have been shown to be hoaxes.

Pauli was correct to hypothesize a new particle than to throw up his
hands
and claim CoE is dethroned.  Maybe he was a bit autistic, refusing to
give
up CoE, hmmm?

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-03-29 00:50 +0000
  Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-03-29 00:53 +0000
    Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-03-29 00:55 +0000
  Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 18:52 -0700
    Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-30 02:17 -0700
      Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-03-30 15:10 +0000
  Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-03-29 13:25 +0000
  Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-03-29 22:14 -0700
    Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-03-29 23:27 -0700
      Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-03-30 10:35 +0200
  Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-03-30 08:28 +0000
  Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-03-30 15:37 +0000
    Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-03-30 16:55 +0000
      Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-03-30 23:53 +0000
        Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-30 18:35 -0700
        Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-03-31 07:32 +0200
        Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. Charleton Christakos Dou <oskir@knkh.gr> - 2025-04-04 19:28 +0000
          Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-04 22:36 +0000
            Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-05 02:49 +0000
              Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-05 03:17 +0000
              Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-06 14:17 +0000
                Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-06 16:12 +0000
                Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-06 20:43 +0000
                Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-07 00:50 +0000
                Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-07 04:01 +0000
                Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-07 07:14 +0200
                Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-07 13:07 +0000
                Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-07 13:29 +0000
                Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-07 15:46 +0000
                Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-07 17:22 +0000
                Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-07 19:16 +0000
                Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. Marquis Kefalas <luf@uuema.gr> - 2025-04-07 17:48 +0000
                Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-07 17:19 +0200
            Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. Reilies Huszár Bian <seue@es.hu> - 2025-04-05 10:02 +0000
      Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-03-31 08:05 +0200
      Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-01 21:18 +0200
        Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-01 22:03 +0000
        Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-01 22:05 +0000
          Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-04 03:48 +0000
            Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. Quenton Costantini <nuett@stn.it> - 2025-04-04 07:12 +0000
            Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-16 20:10 +0200
              Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. Francesco Kaczka <rck@ooeer.pl> - 2025-04-16 20:18 +0000
  Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> - 2025-04-02 19:57 +0000
    Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-03 05:15 +0000
    Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 23:16 -0700
      Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 06:52 -0700
      Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> - 2025-04-03 15:56 +0000
        Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-03 21:46 +0000

csiph-web